-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
Range Guidelines
- Thread starter Wes
- Start date
DocTomoe
Well-Known Member
Well, here is a hot-button issue just waiting to happen, especially after I drop in my two cents, so here I go.
First off, sensors:
There are EM and light based sensors which are limited to the speed-of-light in regard to their range and lag times, which I'd give a one-light-minute range to.
(Fun Idea: Park 30 LY away from Yamatai and point a sensor at the Yamatai system and watch it grow due to the light from the system reaching the 30 LY mark.)
EDIT: EM and light-based sensor ranges being limited in regard to real-time data. However, these systems realistically have no range limitation in regard to long-term scanning.
Hyperspace and subspace based sensors which utilize the same speeds which our ships can go, thus they're able to see a hell of a long ways away, how far is the tricky part. I'm thinking a 40 LY cap would be ideal for short-term scans. I would think that a fixed sensor system looking at something specific would be able to see a few hundred LY away.
Quantum and gravimetric based sensors are a very tricky matter. Quantum events can be tied to each other from dozens of light years away. A star being transpositioned for example would effect neighboring star systems. A fleet's movement into and out of hyperspace or utilizing wormholes would be easily apparent as well. I'm thinking, a 10 LY cap on knowing exactly what happened, 30 LY cap on knowing "Something happened there right now, don't know what exactly.", and a 50 LY cap on "Uh... maybe something happened, the sensor is kinda moody."
Weapons;
Oooh this one is a big pickle. I'll see what I can contribute.
Subspace and hyperspace torpedoes; due to the inherent capability of the weapons to travel at high FTL speeds, I think putting a cap on the range is a very difficult matter, even more so if the given weapon is designed to go long range, such ranges would have to be determined on a case by case basis I would figure. There is no reason I can see to prevent a faction from developing an interstellar cruise missile system.
Solid Munition Weapons; Due to solid munition weapons being common in space and planetary use, two limitations would have to be established. However, establishing limits on solid munition weapons may be difficult. Theoretically, it would be possible for a planetary railgun system to fire a round, and put it into sustained orbit around the planet. It would also be theoretically possible to fire an artillery grade shell from a ship at the edge of a star system, then a year later have it impact on a desired target. The only limitations on ranges of solid munitions realistically are variables such as solid objects in the path of the weapon, gravitational effects, atmospheric effects, and range calculation. I am unable to really give a good suggestion for solid munition range caps.
Energy and particle weapons; There are just too many things to debate in this matter, but I suggest a .12 AU / 1 Light-Minute range limitation on energy and particle weapons due to their speeds being related to the speed of light. I suggest this due to a one light-minute span being a reasonable duration for a high-energy reaction to run it's course, and it being a VERY long while for a ship to be allowed to move from the weapon's course.
Faster-than-light energy, particle, and dimensional weapons; Due to the nature of these weapons, I would suggest that a 10 Light-minute or 1.2 AU range limitation be established. This would be assuming that the faster-than-light energy weapons are barely pushing past the light-speed barrier.
Field based weapons (Interdiction, countermeasures, etc.); The range limitation on such systems would most likely be limited to the power committed to the system, the system itself, and limitations induced by local phenomena such as nearby black holes, quantum distortions, etc etc etc. However, at most, I would feel comfortable with a 1 LY range limitation in regard to stationary systems such as those on lori or planets. But, I would feel a bit better with a range limitation based on the size of the area the field is intended to protect, at least in regard to interdiction and other such defenses.
Misc; Honestly though, ranges should be determined on a case by case basis. There is always a new idea to push up the bar.
First off, sensors:
There are EM and light based sensors which are limited to the speed-of-light in regard to their range and lag times, which I'd give a one-light-minute range to.
(Fun Idea: Park 30 LY away from Yamatai and point a sensor at the Yamatai system and watch it grow due to the light from the system reaching the 30 LY mark.)
EDIT: EM and light-based sensor ranges being limited in regard to real-time data. However, these systems realistically have no range limitation in regard to long-term scanning.
Hyperspace and subspace based sensors which utilize the same speeds which our ships can go, thus they're able to see a hell of a long ways away, how far is the tricky part. I'm thinking a 40 LY cap would be ideal for short-term scans. I would think that a fixed sensor system looking at something specific would be able to see a few hundred LY away.
Quantum and gravimetric based sensors are a very tricky matter. Quantum events can be tied to each other from dozens of light years away. A star being transpositioned for example would effect neighboring star systems. A fleet's movement into and out of hyperspace or utilizing wormholes would be easily apparent as well. I'm thinking, a 10 LY cap on knowing exactly what happened, 30 LY cap on knowing "Something happened there right now, don't know what exactly.", and a 50 LY cap on "Uh... maybe something happened, the sensor is kinda moody."
Weapons;
Oooh this one is a big pickle. I'll see what I can contribute.
Subspace and hyperspace torpedoes; due to the inherent capability of the weapons to travel at high FTL speeds, I think putting a cap on the range is a very difficult matter, even more so if the given weapon is designed to go long range, such ranges would have to be determined on a case by case basis I would figure. There is no reason I can see to prevent a faction from developing an interstellar cruise missile system.
Solid Munition Weapons; Due to solid munition weapons being common in space and planetary use, two limitations would have to be established. However, establishing limits on solid munition weapons may be difficult. Theoretically, it would be possible for a planetary railgun system to fire a round, and put it into sustained orbit around the planet. It would also be theoretically possible to fire an artillery grade shell from a ship at the edge of a star system, then a year later have it impact on a desired target. The only limitations on ranges of solid munitions realistically are variables such as solid objects in the path of the weapon, gravitational effects, atmospheric effects, and range calculation. I am unable to really give a good suggestion for solid munition range caps.
Energy and particle weapons; There are just too many things to debate in this matter, but I suggest a .12 AU / 1 Light-Minute range limitation on energy and particle weapons due to their speeds being related to the speed of light. I suggest this due to a one light-minute span being a reasonable duration for a high-energy reaction to run it's course, and it being a VERY long while for a ship to be allowed to move from the weapon's course.
Faster-than-light energy, particle, and dimensional weapons; Due to the nature of these weapons, I would suggest that a 10 Light-minute or 1.2 AU range limitation be established. This would be assuming that the faster-than-light energy weapons are barely pushing past the light-speed barrier.
Field based weapons (Interdiction, countermeasures, etc.); The range limitation on such systems would most likely be limited to the power committed to the system, the system itself, and limitations induced by local phenomena such as nearby black holes, quantum distortions, etc etc etc. However, at most, I would feel comfortable with a 1 LY range limitation in regard to stationary systems such as those on lori or planets. But, I would feel a bit better with a range limitation based on the size of the area the field is intended to protect, at least in regard to interdiction and other such defenses.
Misc; Honestly though, ranges should be determined on a case by case basis. There is always a new idea to push up the bar.
Fred
Retired Staff
Tomoe used the 'what could we do with what we have' approach. I'll use the 'what should we have them do in regard to what we ought to want to achieve' approach.
Sensors:
Sensors are both a GM's tool in offering the players of a plotship what is out there, and also a tool for the players to look out there, make the right scans and yield up useful information a GM could reward those whom know what to look for or those whom look before they leap.
Essentially, your sensors systems are composed of three fundamentals: the short-range inter-planetary sensors, the long-range interstellar sensors and finally the scanner.
Short-range sensors turn out being used by ships within the star system range. They likely have the power to give out detailed information about objects within the environment - ideally, they should be able to cover more or less all a star system, though obstruction (like something behind a planetary body) could hinder the readings obtained. Short-range sensors being in active use can make a ship easier to detect, so, ships wishing to not stand out as much can set their short-range sensors to passive mode and go in silent running. Once in silent-running, your sensors are likely only good enough to get readings on a much smaller scale (around single planets).
It's best to remember that sensors have a detection range and an identification range - these specifics are important tools both GMs and players alike will be able to use. Having sensors which are too good can be a disservice to both the plot (as the GM doesn't necessarily want the player to know everything) and the player (whom could be given the opportunity to make good-calls in using his scanning equipment to get informaion that he normally wouldn't have had without action).
Active scanning allows a ship's sensors to get a detailed scan of a specific area within its sensor range, yielding much more detail than it had previously. Active scanning would serve great use in trying to get even more information on an object in space, try to find out the presence of something trying to be elusive (silent-running vessel on the other side of a moon) or to be able to get a target lock on a target to fire weapons (usually, the other ship is aware of when you have a lock on it, so, it makes sense).
Long-range sensors are essentially the eyes of a ship beyond the immediate vicinity of a star system (greater than a 1ly range). Using those sensors, in term of combat visibility, is about equal to having a ship have the short-range sensors on active scanning mode (meaning its not discreet to anyone close by). Usually, long range sensors are more or less useful in terms of navigation since they allow most of all to be able to chart out objects within a certain range. They would likely be able to spy out something pretty showy, like a ship folding through space, at an average of 5 light years.
Active long range scanning would be able to light up any high-energy being used within an average of about 10 light years to be able to detect contacts having distinguishable power sources, or using a mean to travel which is more discreet than hyperspace - like subspace distorsion. Using active scans in such a fashion makes the scanning vessel's position really obvious, however.
Starships should yield the advantage of sensors to larger installations such has planets and starbases with superior equipment, whom could maintain watch over a much bigger area. While starships in themselves might have restricted sensor range, nothing also prohibits them from using cartography obtained from other sources, or being linked to sensors whom are in an area they cannot see and thus be able to know what is there even though their own sensors would not ordinarily be able to spy those more distant areas (that's likely how the sensor nets are made).
SUMMARY:
Short-range sensors (active): ~200 AU (+detailed scan of a 2 AU area)
Short-range sensors (standard): ~20 AU
Short-range sensors (passive): ~2 AU
Long-range sensors (active): ~10 ly
Long-range sensors (standard): ~5 ly
Long-range sensors (passive): ~2000 AU / .3 ly (navigation+cartography only)
Weaponry:
I tend not to like very long range battle which involves cruise missiles and long-distance attack since it only encourages battles to be more clinical, something which Wes seemed to want to reduce to allow players to feel more involved.
Therefore, while I can see the roleplaying value behind using a cruise missile to be shot toward a planet and then have a PC ship try to stop it, I'll focus on intra-ship combat.
Ship vs. ship is usually done at sublight speed. The fastest, most accurate weapons are usually seen as beams which go at 1c and other weapons whom go slightly less than that, from solid-ammo weaponry like railguns to accelerated particle cannons.
Regardless of a weapon's destructive potential, it's only as effective at its accuracy allows, and this hinge on its delay to impact. Typically, ships moving at 0.3c firing 0.5c to 1c fast weapons will have their engagement range go around 1 to 10 light-seconds. Any weapon being able to hit a target within that range in a reasonable delay is okay, any weapon too slow is likely only meant to be fired at something stationary or from very very close. Anything too fast is likely a cheap overpowered weapon which is way too powerful for its intended purpose in the RP.
Lasers go at 1c. If I fire from 3 light-second away (~900 000km), it's going to take 3 seconds to reach the target. In 3 seconds, the opponent likely has the time if he is aware of him being attacked to avoid being in the path of the attack. Therefore, using a laser from a closer range like 0.5 light second (~150 000km) leaves much less room to maneuver to the enemy navigator and thus helps with the attacker's ship accuracy a lot. While 1 light-second might not be the maximum firing range of a laser cannon, it does get close to the effective range the weapon itself has.
Other direct-fire weapons will follow about the same mechanic, except they aren't as fast as a beam weapon, of course.
In the case of guided warheads, they should have speeds which allow them to be seen - as Wes seems to enjoy being able to shoot down ship-killing warheads with his plotship instead of going BLARGHDEAD like how weapons such as the AS-5 and AS-7 torpedoes presently perform.
The main advantage guided warheads have over direct fire weapons is course-correction: they have a much better odds of hitting a target over long distances than direct-fire weapons since they are self-propelled. While they might not be as fast as lasers, seeing they are shortlived and unmanned they generally are able to hit higher acceleration speeds than starships (whom typically top around .3c) which means that if left unchecked, they should be able to connect with their target.
Key to making a warhead is generally making sure that it has a time-delay to impact so that the opposing ship has a chance to use point-defense weapons on it. If this is not possible, then either the weapon was used in circumstances making this impossible (which in itself should have been an opposed action, such as getting on a side of a ship which had no point defense weapons or getting close enough to insure a very short delay-to-impact) or is, like I stated before, just too powerful for its own good.
Sensors:
Sensors are both a GM's tool in offering the players of a plotship what is out there, and also a tool for the players to look out there, make the right scans and yield up useful information a GM could reward those whom know what to look for or those whom look before they leap.
Essentially, your sensors systems are composed of three fundamentals: the short-range inter-planetary sensors, the long-range interstellar sensors and finally the scanner.
Short-range sensors turn out being used by ships within the star system range. They likely have the power to give out detailed information about objects within the environment - ideally, they should be able to cover more or less all a star system, though obstruction (like something behind a planetary body) could hinder the readings obtained. Short-range sensors being in active use can make a ship easier to detect, so, ships wishing to not stand out as much can set their short-range sensors to passive mode and go in silent running. Once in silent-running, your sensors are likely only good enough to get readings on a much smaller scale (around single planets).
It's best to remember that sensors have a detection range and an identification range - these specifics are important tools both GMs and players alike will be able to use. Having sensors which are too good can be a disservice to both the plot (as the GM doesn't necessarily want the player to know everything) and the player (whom could be given the opportunity to make good-calls in using his scanning equipment to get informaion that he normally wouldn't have had without action).
Active scanning allows a ship's sensors to get a detailed scan of a specific area within its sensor range, yielding much more detail than it had previously. Active scanning would serve great use in trying to get even more information on an object in space, try to find out the presence of something trying to be elusive (silent-running vessel on the other side of a moon) or to be able to get a target lock on a target to fire weapons (usually, the other ship is aware of when you have a lock on it, so, it makes sense).
Long-range sensors are essentially the eyes of a ship beyond the immediate vicinity of a star system (greater than a 1ly range). Using those sensors, in term of combat visibility, is about equal to having a ship have the short-range sensors on active scanning mode (meaning its not discreet to anyone close by). Usually, long range sensors are more or less useful in terms of navigation since they allow most of all to be able to chart out objects within a certain range. They would likely be able to spy out something pretty showy, like a ship folding through space, at an average of 5 light years.
Active long range scanning would be able to light up any high-energy being used within an average of about 10 light years to be able to detect contacts having distinguishable power sources, or using a mean to travel which is more discreet than hyperspace - like subspace distorsion. Using active scans in such a fashion makes the scanning vessel's position really obvious, however.
Starships should yield the advantage of sensors to larger installations such has planets and starbases with superior equipment, whom could maintain watch over a much bigger area. While starships in themselves might have restricted sensor range, nothing also prohibits them from using cartography obtained from other sources, or being linked to sensors whom are in an area they cannot see and thus be able to know what is there even though their own sensors would not ordinarily be able to spy those more distant areas (that's likely how the sensor nets are made).
SUMMARY:
Short-range sensors (active): ~200 AU (+detailed scan of a 2 AU area)
Short-range sensors (standard): ~20 AU
Short-range sensors (passive): ~2 AU
Long-range sensors (active): ~10 ly
Long-range sensors (standard): ~5 ly
Long-range sensors (passive): ~2000 AU / .3 ly (navigation+cartography only)
Weaponry:
I tend not to like very long range battle which involves cruise missiles and long-distance attack since it only encourages battles to be more clinical, something which Wes seemed to want to reduce to allow players to feel more involved.
Therefore, while I can see the roleplaying value behind using a cruise missile to be shot toward a planet and then have a PC ship try to stop it, I'll focus on intra-ship combat.
Ship vs. ship is usually done at sublight speed. The fastest, most accurate weapons are usually seen as beams which go at 1c and other weapons whom go slightly less than that, from solid-ammo weaponry like railguns to accelerated particle cannons.
Regardless of a weapon's destructive potential, it's only as effective at its accuracy allows, and this hinge on its delay to impact. Typically, ships moving at 0.3c firing 0.5c to 1c fast weapons will have their engagement range go around 1 to 10 light-seconds. Any weapon being able to hit a target within that range in a reasonable delay is okay, any weapon too slow is likely only meant to be fired at something stationary or from very very close. Anything too fast is likely a cheap overpowered weapon which is way too powerful for its intended purpose in the RP.
Lasers go at 1c. If I fire from 3 light-second away (~900 000km), it's going to take 3 seconds to reach the target. In 3 seconds, the opponent likely has the time if he is aware of him being attacked to avoid being in the path of the attack. Therefore, using a laser from a closer range like 0.5 light second (~150 000km) leaves much less room to maneuver to the enemy navigator and thus helps with the attacker's ship accuracy a lot. While 1 light-second might not be the maximum firing range of a laser cannon, it does get close to the effective range the weapon itself has.
Other direct-fire weapons will follow about the same mechanic, except they aren't as fast as a beam weapon, of course.
In the case of guided warheads, they should have speeds which allow them to be seen - as Wes seems to enjoy being able to shoot down ship-killing warheads with his plotship instead of going BLARGHDEAD like how weapons such as the AS-5 and AS-7 torpedoes presently perform.
The main advantage guided warheads have over direct fire weapons is course-correction: they have a much better odds of hitting a target over long distances than direct-fire weapons since they are self-propelled. While they might not be as fast as lasers, seeing they are shortlived and unmanned they generally are able to hit higher acceleration speeds than starships (whom typically top around .3c) which means that if left unchecked, they should be able to connect with their target.
Key to making a warhead is generally making sure that it has a time-delay to impact so that the opposing ship has a chance to use point-defense weapons on it. If this is not possible, then either the weapon was used in circumstances making this impossible (which in itself should have been an opposed action, such as getting on a side of a ship which had no point defense weapons or getting close enough to insure a very short delay-to-impact) or is, like I stated before, just too powerful for its own good.
Strangelove
Inactive Member
I have to admit I've had beef with FTL missiles for a while.
Right now, FTL missiles are the perfect weapon in SARP. They aren't used like missiles at all, but rather "Energy Weapon +1". And by that I mean they can do identical damage types as beam weapons (aether detonators, etc), but they have a higher velocity, as well as higher accuracy via mid-flight course correction. Additionally most are un-interceptable due to the fact they're either micromissiles that swarm in thousands, or their FTL systems have interdiction resistance. Ammunition usually isn't a factor either, thanks to on-board fabrication facilities
Thus, from a powergaming standpoint there is no reason to use either traditional missiles or energy weapons if one wants to make a engine of destruction. If these weapons start to become standard fare in SARP it might have an effect roleplaying; due to the nature of the weapon, one cannot order PA to shoot them down, nor perform evasive maneuvers, etc. Nor does the attacking ship need to do anything. It's just "press button, do damage". At least with traditional missiles or energy weapons you can dodge, change firing position, etc.
Therefore I would purpose a vast range decrease, in order to limit them in that sense. Hopefully that will give future shipwrights some more incentive to use turrets and STL cruise missiles .
Right now, FTL missiles are the perfect weapon in SARP. They aren't used like missiles at all, but rather "Energy Weapon +1". And by that I mean they can do identical damage types as beam weapons (aether detonators, etc), but they have a higher velocity, as well as higher accuracy via mid-flight course correction. Additionally most are un-interceptable due to the fact they're either micromissiles that swarm in thousands, or their FTL systems have interdiction resistance. Ammunition usually isn't a factor either, thanks to on-board fabrication facilities
Thus, from a powergaming standpoint there is no reason to use either traditional missiles or energy weapons if one wants to make a engine of destruction. If these weapons start to become standard fare in SARP it might have an effect roleplaying; due to the nature of the weapon, one cannot order PA to shoot them down, nor perform evasive maneuvers, etc. Nor does the attacking ship need to do anything. It's just "press button, do damage". At least with traditional missiles or energy weapons you can dodge, change firing position, etc.
Therefore I would purpose a vast range decrease, in order to limit them in that sense. Hopefully that will give future shipwrights some more incentive to use turrets and STL cruise missiles .
Fred
Retired Staff
What Strangelove said +1.
Giving FTL missiles a short range is self-defeating, though. It doesn't limit them from being used in starship combat and thus make the problem perpetuate itself.
The problem also is that SARP not only has anti-ship torpedoes, but has also its brand of long range cruise missiles (which have me go BLEGH) and whom indeed need FTL capacity to have credible usage.
But then, the problem ends up much like the Type 30 torpedo Wes has in the wiki: trying to make a single warhead pack by itself the quality of many previous weapon systems. Precedent, in this instance, comes back to bite us in the behind.
It also bears mention to say that many torpedo types have an extremely huge explosive radius. Effectively, any big blasts with a warhead severely hinder the advantages of prediction capabilities like WARMs because you end up knowing about the attack, but not having the time and room to dodge.
Giving FTL missiles a short range is self-defeating, though. It doesn't limit them from being used in starship combat and thus make the problem perpetuate itself.
The problem also is that SARP not only has anti-ship torpedoes, but has also its brand of long range cruise missiles (which have me go BLEGH) and whom indeed need FTL capacity to have credible usage.
But then, the problem ends up much like the Type 30 torpedo Wes has in the wiki: trying to make a single warhead pack by itself the quality of many previous weapon systems. Precedent, in this instance, comes back to bite us in the behind.
It also bears mention to say that many torpedo types have an extremely huge explosive radius. Effectively, any big blasts with a warhead severely hinder the advantages of prediction capabilities like WARMs because you end up knowing about the attack, but not having the time and room to dodge.
OsakanOne
Retired Member
Maybe FTL missiles wouldn't be that accurate.
They take aim and rush. At those speeds, I think it would be ludicrously difficult (not impossible but extremely non-feasible) for an FTL missile to be able to slow itself down, correct it's angle of attack and re-enter attack speed.
How does something like that slow itself down? The missile needs to be the size of a small starship: In effect, a cruise missile.
They should leave a parent body and rush for a target. If they miss, they never know about it.
They take aim and rush. At those speeds, I think it would be ludicrously difficult (not impossible but extremely non-feasible) for an FTL missile to be able to slow itself down, correct it's angle of attack and re-enter attack speed.
How does something like that slow itself down? The missile needs to be the size of a small starship: In effect, a cruise missile.
They should leave a parent body and rush for a target. If they miss, they never know about it.
Fred
Retired Staff
The FTL missile wouldn't really need to slow itself down anyways - the goal is making contact with the enemy, right? The speed at which it collides doesn't really matter so much.
Thing is, as long as the delay to impact is very small (understatement), all you need is to resort to your targeting systems to have the right firing solution and then BAM!
Also, given some warheads are CFS based... it means they have no 'front' or 'forward-facing' at all, nor are they limited by momentum. A warhead could very well miss (somehow) and zigzag back on its target while the defenders would have been unaware that they have been missed seven times or so.
Thing is, as long as the delay to impact is very small (understatement), all you need is to resort to your targeting systems to have the right firing solution and then BAM!
Also, given some warheads are CFS based... it means they have no 'front' or 'forward-facing' at all, nor are they limited by momentum. A warhead could very well miss (somehow) and zigzag back on its target while the defenders would have been unaware that they have been missed seven times or so.
Le Blue Dude
Inactive Member
For the record: Gravity travels the speed of light. so saith the physicist.
Also: Actve sensors ALWAYS have a shorter range then passive sensors. They have to send out a beam of data, bounce it off the target, and get it back. It takes twice as long. However, they're also always more accurate.
Also: Actve sensors ALWAYS have a shorter range then passive sensors. They have to send out a beam of data, bounce it off the target, and get it back. It takes twice as long. However, they're also always more accurate.
Itkatsu Kiyoko
Inactive Member
Le Blue Dude said:
I'd be inclined to disagree with this; passive sensors rely on listening for whatever energy is being given off by an object, and if that object isn't giving off an energy or is stealthed then your range will be close to bugger all. On the other hand if your sparying out energy with your active gear and watching the returns bounce off them then you are going to be picking up things like these at greater distances.
Le Blue Dude
Inactive Member
Itkatsu Kiyoko said:
If time is not a constraint yes, but time IS the constraint here, and data from a passive sensor will be avalible about twice as quickly. The spraying energy gives a better data accuracy, but you still have to wait for it to bounce back. In atmosphere radar is so much longer ranged then the eyeball because visible light is absorbed by the air, and because the time is not a constraint, so the extra accuracy in data gives it extra range.
In space, where range is limited by time, and distances are measured in light minutes then you WILL see the moon before radar bounces off of it and comes back.
From earth you will see the moon almost a full 15 seconds before your radar tells you it is there. For larger distances this gap will be longer.
And I just realised you're talking about OMNIDIRECTIONAL radar, and I'm talking about DIRECTIONAL/TARGETING radar.
Whups.
Still the range would be the same. One would just scan at a greater detail within that range. Since time is the contraint. There's no air to absorb or diffuse the signal. You could do radar with visible light and it would not change the result
Itkatsu Kiyoko
Inactive Member
Most sensors are instantaneous, or at least FTL, and some are even precognitive.
Kyoki
Inactive Member
I'd have to agree with Itkatsu here. The major factions (Nep, Yam, and UOC) will have FTL sensors, hence the ability to dodge lasers and such. I'm not sure about smaller factions (Lorath, Elysia, etc.) So time wise, active (being FTL) will easily be faster than radar and the like, which is waaaay too low-tech for the major groups.
Fred
Retired Staff
Out of optimal firing range, yes... if it's a mobile target. If it's stationary, you can probably still hit it - even with large delay-to-impact attacks (1 minute for a railgun shell to hit a starbase, for example).
In my experience, ship "knifefights" happen under 1 lightseconds. In some instances, I've actually begun to actually count distance in kilometers (with 0.3c STL speed turned into 100 000 kps).
That's when dealing with directed-energy weapons and projectiles that go close to 1c. Anything slower (railguns) actually requires you to be closer.
The only thing that really widens that range is FTL weaponry, like Yamatai's Z1 torpedoes. At 12 lightseconds away, they'll hit under a second, leaving minimal time for point-defense to even react to them (1c lasers catching 12c missiles sounds like a tall feat too).
Heck, this reminds me: most power armors have FTL capabilities... but when are they ever used. Just having 0.3c and perhaps -boosting- to 0.9c is probably plenty enough to them - when do we ever have power armors do inter-planetary travel except whenever their motherships get blown up?
Consider how a FTL speed of 500c crosses over the distance between Earth and the Sun in 1 second.
In my experience, ship "knifefights" happen under 1 lightseconds. In some instances, I've actually begun to actually count distance in kilometers (with 0.3c STL speed turned into 100 000 kps).
That's when dealing with directed-energy weapons and projectiles that go close to 1c. Anything slower (railguns) actually requires you to be closer.
The only thing that really widens that range is FTL weaponry, like Yamatai's Z1 torpedoes. At 12 lightseconds away, they'll hit under a second, leaving minimal time for point-defense to even react to them (1c lasers catching 12c missiles sounds like a tall feat too).
Heck, this reminds me: most power armors have FTL capabilities... but when are they ever used. Just having 0.3c and perhaps -boosting- to 0.9c is probably plenty enough to them - when do we ever have power armors do inter-planetary travel except whenever their motherships get blown up?
Consider how a FTL speed of 500c crosses over the distance between Earth and the Sun in 1 second.
I would definitely be okay with retconning power armors to the new lowered torpedo speeds (eg 4 to 12c). Most power armors don't need and/or should not have FTL, but for space armors like the Mindy, this should be sufficient.
Fred
Retired Staff
I suggest a 500c retcon instead of 2500c for the existing spacy armors.
Previous RPs in the past have shown these able to amount to some inter-planetary/borderline interstellar travel in the past. At 500c, you can conveniently calculate 1 AU being crosses in a second, so it's a very convenient value.
As for future refits or armor model, I'd entirely agree with you there. We have motherships and carriers and they are there for a reason - that reason becomes far less significant if said units are very capable of doing intraplanetary and intrastellar travel. However, they should definitely be mobile enough to 'matter' when inside ship-engagement-range (~30 light seconds?).
Previous RPs in the past have shown these able to amount to some inter-planetary/borderline interstellar travel in the past. At 500c, you can conveniently calculate 1 AU being crosses in a second, so it's a very convenient value.
As for future refits or armor model, I'd entirely agree with you there. We have motherships and carriers and they are there for a reason - that reason becomes far less significant if said units are very capable of doing intraplanetary and intrastellar travel. However, they should definitely be mobile enough to 'matter' when inside ship-engagement-range (~30 light seconds?).
Fred
Retired Staff
Good explanation? I've absolutely none, except for preserving past RP. That's really all I was aiming for - we're talking retcon of past values here, after all.
As for subsequent values used? Well...
The ongoing war then gives us a good excuse to say "we can't afford producing high tech stuff like that anymore", meaning that we can just go and make a refit to adjust them. I just tihnk it's important to keep the flavor value or some power armors intact.
The best power armor speed, though, is up in the air. If we're going to have them more planet/short-range space engagement oriented... I could see 0.9c~1c as the cap being acceptable.
I mean, a small power armor crossing the distance between Earth and the Sun inside 10 minutes is hardly 'bad'. They don't have a shuttle's engine either, not a torpedo's dedicated drive system.
Heck, Yamatai would probably be minimally affected thanks to their teleporters and in most other cases, it likely wouldn't matter anyways, seeing stuff with power armors is usually made at STL-friendly distances.
As for subsequent values used? Well...
The ongoing war then gives us a good excuse to say "we can't afford producing high tech stuff like that anymore", meaning that we can just go and make a refit to adjust them. I just tihnk it's important to keep the flavor value or some power armors intact.
The best power armor speed, though, is up in the air. If we're going to have them more planet/short-range space engagement oriented... I could see 0.9c~1c as the cap being acceptable.
I mean, a small power armor crossing the distance between Earth and the Sun inside 10 minutes is hardly 'bad'. They don't have a shuttle's engine either, not a torpedo's dedicated drive system.
Heck, Yamatai would probably be minimally affected thanks to their teleporters and in most other cases, it likely wouldn't matter anyways, seeing stuff with power armors is usually made at STL-friendly distances.
